Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly
| Contig ID | Chimera Type | Confidence | Decision | Breakpoint | Evidence Types | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 334 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 237 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3992 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,992, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 5164 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,164, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 3125 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1495 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,495, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 356 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 379 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 367 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 870 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6145 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,145, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2269 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,269, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3229 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,229, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 785 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 785, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3070 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,070, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1501 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,501, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 167 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1910 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 910 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 910, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1812 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,812, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1086 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 972 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 702 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 702, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 241 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7473 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,473, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 4009 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,009, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 375 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 375, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 424 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 424, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 3412 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,412, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1291 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,291, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 815 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 815, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6741 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 7395 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,395, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4971 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,971, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1505 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,505, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1368 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,368, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1655 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 970 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 506 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 583 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 4831 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,831, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 291 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 291, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_007 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7458 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,458, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1714 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,714, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1350 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,350, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 522 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 889 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 889, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1692 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,692, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1278 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,278, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 250 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 169 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| cov_chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 1110 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,110, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1275 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,275, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5044 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,044, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5316 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,316, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 202 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 202, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_012 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 6329 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,329, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 2667 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | SPLIT | 786 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 786, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_015 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 420 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 929 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 929, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| contig_018 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 385 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 385, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2258 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 215 | coverage_discontinuity, gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 215, there is a 2.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.09) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.90.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1613 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1449 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,449, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 167 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.06) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 3742 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,742, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1326 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,326, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 1265 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_010 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7018 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,018, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_011 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 6402 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,402, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1985 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,985, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| contig_014 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 2873 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,873, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 2739 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1492 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
|
| cov_chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 1820 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,820, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1722 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,722, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 7276 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,276, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 4334 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
|
| contig_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 5408 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,408, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1513 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,513, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| contig_009 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 2776 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 1516 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_017 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 444 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 444, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 269 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_004 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | SPLIT | 1763 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1062 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,062, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
|
| contig_002 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2318 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,318, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 252 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 252, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_008 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 996 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_013 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 736 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 233 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.5 | PRESERVE | 1301 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,301, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
|
| contig_020 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 3336 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,336, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
|
| chimeric_001 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | SPLIT | 1159 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,159, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 163 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_005 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | SPLIT | 309 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 309, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| cov_chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 913 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 913, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
|
| contig_004 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 356 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| contig_006 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 388 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 388, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
| contig_016 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 2766 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,766, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
|
| contig_019 | technical_artifact | 0.7 | PRESERVE | 2858 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
|
| chimeric_002 | technical_artifact | 0.8 | PRESERVE | 708 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 708, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
|
| chimeric_003 | technical_artifact | 1.0 | PRESERVE | 1782 | gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change |
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,782, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
|
Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:
Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:
Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.